Ann Coulter | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | John McCain | News

Ann Coulter: I'd Campaign for Hillary if McCain is GOP Candidate

Things are getting really confusing.

Colmes has no answer for this latest tirade from Ann Coulter, asking her to fill in for him next week after she declares that she'd vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain. In fact, she'd campaign for her.

Says Coulter: "She's more conservative than he is. I think she'd be stronger on the war on terrorism. I absolutely believe that...I will campaign for her if it's McCain. He has led the fight against torture at Guantanamo. She hasn't done that. She hasn't taken a position in front....He keeps going on and on about how he was the only Republican who supported the surge and other Republicans attacked him. It was so awful how he was attacked, it was worse than being held in a tiger cage. Well I looked at the record, Republicans all supported the surge. He's not only not the only one who supported the surge. I promise you no Republican attacked him for this and you know why I think he's saying that, Sean. I realize cause he keeps saying it every debate. He's confusing Republicans with his liberal friends. They're the ones who attacked him for it. His real friends...Their positions are about that far apart. When George Bush said at the State of the Union address that the surge is working in Iraq, Obama sat on his hands, Kennedy sat on his hands, Hillary leapt up and applauded that we are winning the surge in Iraq. She gave much better answers in those debates when Democrats like Obama and Biden were all saying what will we do when three cities are attacked. She said I will find who did it and I will go after them. Hillary is absolutely more conservative (than McCain). Moreover, she lies less than John McCain. She's smarter than John McCain. So that when she's caught shamelessly lying. At least the Cliintons know they've been caught lying. McCain is so stupid he doesn't even know he's been caught."

Speaking of voting, is Mann Coulter even allowed to vote anymore?

Meanwhile, Dan Abrams asks if the media is rooting against Hillary. Well, if they're giving Ann Coulter a platform to endorse her, you really do have to wonder...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What has John McCain lied about? I aint crazy about his conservatism and his inability to enter the 21st Century, but what has he lied about?

    Coulter makes Margaret Hamilton and Nancy Kulp look like beauty queens. Is Nancy Kulp still alive? If she is, I love ya' dear--you have inner beauty. Coulter aint even got that.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 1, 2008 11:33:39 AM

  2. I think this is the first time EVER that I have agreed with Anne Coulter. I agree with just about everything she said about Hillary in that clip.

    She did support the war. She hasn't been front and center opposing torture, Guantanamo, the surge, etc. She did applaud enthusiastically when Bush said that we were winning with the surge.

    I know that Coulter is playing compassion troll here to confuse Democrats in general and Hillary supporters in particular. Would we expect any less from her? However, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 1, 2008 11:35:36 AM

  3. This is a specific tactic being used to make people scared to vote for Hillary.

    Posted by: Britton | Feb 1, 2008 11:47:04 AM

  4. I, for one, will vote McCain if it comes down to Obama vs McCain. Electing Obama will be a disaster - another Carter. He'll be eaten alive as President.

    Posted by: scott | Feb 1, 2008 12:04:53 PM

  5. I don't hate Hillary, but I'm not 100% on her bandwagon either. I don't particularly like Obama's philandering with the ex-gay preacher, but I'm not 100% against him either. I guess I'm one of those rare people who's still undecided.

    The Clintonian legacy is really pretty poor when it comes to GLBT issues. We get lots of great rhetorical support, but when it comes to legislation and executive leadership, it's been a big disappointment. I had a professor in grad school (the first time) who was a huge Reagan acolyte... it was so annoying. Anyway, he said one time that if anyone in the country should have felt betrayed by Mr. Clinton, it was the GLBT community. I had a hard time arguing with that. Yes, it's true that Bill isn't running... it's Hillary. But let's not get so excited that we start thinking that Hillary's going to be much better. She's been a lukewarm supporter at best, so it's not like we're electing fucking Margaret Cho to the White House.

    Obama has a similar lukewarm GLBT platform. The McClurkin episode last year was squalid, and I was disppointed that he even considered aligning himself with such a crackpot. Obama's response to the controversy, a statement released on his website, was effusive but too little too late. The experience issue is not a very salient one... the presidency is by its very nature a "learn on the job" kind of gig (unless you're an incumbent running for re-election).

    Long story short (too late, I know), we have two less-than-optimal candidates from a GLBT standpoint. The question now becomes whether we're going to allow our dialogue to focus on GLBT issues, or whether we'll instead look at the bigger picture. Either of these candidates will likely be better on a number of levels than any Republican that's offered. The focus should be on who's more electable against the Republican candidate. I just think that Hillary brings so much more baggage with her, and is such a lightning rod for conservatives in the U.S., that it's risky to put her in as the candidate. America needs a fresh perspective and a new course, and I just don't hear much about that from her.

    It's also telling that Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Ann Coulter are all waxing poetic about Hillary... they fucking HATE her, but they're supporting her bid for the Democratic primary. Why? Simple... she's the easiest one to beat in the national election.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Feb 1, 2008 12:10:11 PM

  6. Scott:

    Jimmy Carter's austere economic policies were responsible for the economic recovery of the 1980s. It was his own party that fucked him over...then again, I guess that's what you're saying the Democrats could do to Obama, hunh? Anyway, Reagan gave all the money Carter's policies generated to all the greedy rich bastards through reckless tax cuts...hey, isn't that what George Dumbya did with Big Cigar Daddy Bill's federal budget surplus?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 1, 2008 12:13:11 PM

  7. ZEKE! Just put down the Barackberry Kool Aide and step away from the voting booth—at least until your intoxication wears off.
    Apparently this is a different Zeke than the one who complainted that Obama sides with right wing religionists against marriage equality rather than agreeing with the United Church of Christ, of which both he and that Zeke are members, that supports gay marriage equality.

    For those who've been suckered in by the Log Heads' propaganda, here are a few points from gay legal scholar Arthur S. Leonard on another blog:

    "We made important advances under Clinton.
    We got for the first time executive orders protecting executive branch employees from sexual orientation discrimination.
    We got a total revamping of the security clearance process that ended the “special procedures” under which gay people were frequently delayed or denied on security clearances, a real problem for people in technology occupations working for government contractors.
    We got the first openly gay federal judge, the first openly gay ambassador [James Hormel], the first openly gay people occupying positions requiring Senate confirmation (like Roberta Achtenberg), the first openly gay people in senior White House staff positions.
    We got a major advance on asylum policy when Janet Reno adopted as official precedent a decision that gays are a “distinct social group” for purposes of analyzing eligibility for political asylum in the US for people from oppressive countries.
    And we got the first president who did not spout reflexively anti-gay positions from the White House on every issue.
    What we didn’t get, unfortunately, was good pro-gay legislation, and the fault was largely because the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress for 6 out of the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.
    I agree that DADT on the military was a disaster, and that the Defense of Marriage Act represented shameless political calculation by Clinton in his 1996 re-election campaign.
    He calculated, probably correctly, that the only way to take same-sex marriage off the table as a campaign issue (and to avoid a federal constitutional amendment writing a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution) was to agree to DOMA, which was originally proposed, I believe, by Bob Dole.
    We need to remember that DOMA was passed by a Congress controlled by the Republican Party, not the Democrats (although it is surely true that Democrats, if united against it, could have filibustered it in the Senate).
    We need to think contextually about this and about DADT. I fault Clinton for failing to provide the leadership he should have provided back in 1993 when the military issue exploded. The best explanation is that he was confronted by leading Democrats, especially in the Senate, who told him that letting gays serve openly would not fly politically in Congress.

    Anyone who says we got NOTHING from the Clinton years and were set backwards is oversimplifying and misrepresenting the state of affairs. It is a mixed picture overall, and we made real progress, mainly on fronts that could be controlled solely by the executive branch due to the lack of control by Democrats of the legislative branch.
    We also, importantly, got our first major Supreme Court victory, Romer v. Evans, which was at least party attributable to Clinton’s two Supreme Court appointments, Breyer and Ginsburg, both of whom have been pretty stalwart in supporting gay rights on the Court. (They both voted our way in Lawrence v. Texas, and they both dissented in the Boy Scouts case.) Indeed, all of GW Bush’s Supreme Court appointees are firm opponents of gay rights."

    OF COURSE, Clinton fucked up in many ways, while other times antigay Republicans AND Dems had his balls tied in a knot. But when are we going to stop judging his wife, the one ON THE BALLOT, for things he did/did not do more than a decade ago. To read all the attacks, you'd think HILLARY was the one who stained Monica's blue dress!

    Yes, when she was 17-years old, Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl." But so was Harvey Milk. Dare I say, "think about it"?

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 1, 2008 12:33:28 PM

  8. I'm glad someone else has pointed out that they have noticed Obama is arrogant.
    I think he has let the adoring minions convince him that he is amazing.
    I guess if enough people told him he had blonde hair over and over, he'd probably beleive that as well.
    So let me get this right, if I become a community advocate in an inner city and then parlay that into a senate job by having some good speaking skills, that makes me the most qualified to lead over 300,000,000 in a time of unequaled problems.
    Give me a break.

    Posted by: daniel | Feb 1, 2008 12:47:23 PM

  9. Who's Anne Coulter?

    Posted by: junior | Feb 1, 2008 12:52:55 PM

  10. Hey, Daniel Obama's doing it kinda' like the way Abraham Lincoln did it, hunh? Only the Lincoln wasn't advocating for the ones in the inner city, he was advocating for their ancestors enslaved on the plantations.

    Lincoln became president with no more time in public service than Obama.

    I wonder if you told Hillary she had blond hair over and over, would she believe it?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 1, 2008 12:56:27 PM

  11. Granted, this website has a very liberal readership, so I understand analyzing Coulter's statements in terms of the effect it has on Clinton/Obama... but, in my opinion, this doesn't have an effect on the Democratic primary near as much (if at all) as it does on the Republican. Liberals and Democrats, in general, I think have learned to take Coulter for what she is, and I don't think that her "supporting" Hillary changes much on the Dem side. People voting for Hillary (or Obama) probably aren't going to change their mind based on what their ultraconservative enemy thinks.

    So instead, I think her comments really have to be weighed in terms of their effect on the Republican race, which, let's not forget, is still hotly contested. Though he is the frontrunner, McCain hasn't won yet, and I'm sure Romney is salivating over this before Super Tuesday. I've been watching the Republican debates with more earnest than the Democratic ones (I like the "know your enemy" approach), and the overarching issue in these debates has been which candidate can return America to a path of conservativeness. No one skews more conservative than Ann Coulter, so her vehemently pulling support for McCain accomplishes what I think she wants: Romney as the nominee. And that's what bothers me, not a roundabout slice and dice of Clinton on Fox News of all places. I'm torn between who I want the Republicans to nominate. On the one hand, if a Republican is to win, I'd much rather it be McCain than Romney (or god forbid Huckabee). But on the other hand, I think Romney is more beatable. So do I hope for the more beatable candidate or do I hope for the nominee I like a little bit more? At the moment, I support the latter, just because I'm cynical and do think a Republican has a very legitimate shot at recapturing the White House, especially in light of our dismal Democratic Congress.

    In any event, I really have enjoyed reading these comments. It always makes me feel good to read substantive thoughts on the internet about something important rather than the bullshit that just seems to permeate our culture.

    Posted by: David | Feb 1, 2008 12:57:37 PM

  12. Obama is genuine. He does need to be more aggressive, but he is the candidate for the future of America - NOW.

    Posted by: NowItMatters | Feb 1, 2008 12:59:44 PM

  13. I don't think there's a conspiracy afoot. I don't think Ann's comments were supposed to help Hillary or hurt Hillary. I think Ann is realizing that Hillary-bashing is an oversaturated market. Everyone talks shit about Hillary. So Ann starts praising Hillary and all of a sudden people are scratching their heads and trying to figure Ann out. And Ann just eats the attention up with a spoon!

    Posted by: Cufflinks | Feb 1, 2008 1:04:15 PM

  14. Frankly, I haven't seen any indication that Obama is just plain mean enough to be president. At least we know that Hillary can fuck somebody up when they need it and we need her to. I find that they are fairly similar on policy issues; they keep trying to highlight their differences, which are more differences in approach or in the details than differences in substance or ultimate goals.

    So it comes to this, a truth all we homos know almost intuitively, that you gotta be a bitch to be a queen.

    Posted by: Clint | Feb 1, 2008 1:08:16 PM

  15. Michael Bedwell -

    Great post. I had forgotten a couple of those points.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Feb 1, 2008 1:08:44 PM

  16. Lord, I am so bored with the "Hillary can be beaten" memo trotted out as fact by allegedly forward thinking, progressive people. They said the same about Bill, Gore and Hillary twice. All were elected, although one had theirs stolen.

    If Hillary wins the nomination, I fear she won't lose the general because so many people "hate" her, it's because the left and the Democrats don't know how to fight and win.

    Posted by: Marco | Feb 1, 2008 1:15:20 PM

  17. I don't know what it is, but everytime I see or hear about Ann Coulter, all I can think is "Ann Coulter is a cunt." I don't know what's wrong with me.

    Posted by: Matt | Feb 1, 2008 1:16:44 PM

  18. Derrick,
    Abraham Lincoln is not here in 2008 when we have an economy that is a disaster looming on the edge of recession, a dollar that basically has no value, people loosing their homes all over the country, (very similar to the Resolution Trust/Savings and Loan disaster from Reagan/Bush era) We have a broken healthcare system where people I know personally are paying $400/month for insurance to have a policy with a $5,000 deductible.

    The list of issues goes on and on and on.

    While I do think that Obama has an excellent delivery in his speeches and speaks of inspiring hope in us all, that is not what makes a great leader.

    I can go into a new job that I really have no qualifications for and no idea what I'm doing, and can tell my employers all the incredible plans I have for this new job and give them hope and excitement that I'm going to make them happy and successful, but when I start that job, if I don't have experience or training and really know what I'm doing, I most likely will fail.

    The job of President of the United States at this point in time needs a person with experience and training.

    Like it or not, you cannot deny that Hillary has the experience from her husband's administration...and she doesn't need trained.

    I haven't even addressed the Donnie McClurkin/Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr?homophobe/racist side of things...I could type all day on those issues.

    Posted by: daniel | Feb 1, 2008 1:18:40 PM

  19. mccain is the same as hilary, a lot of conservatives feel that way. he's a big spender for big gov and illegal amnesty. ann coulter was being serious.

    Posted by: mccain is a liberal | Feb 1, 2008 1:45:43 PM

  20. coulter, the "polemicist" is not the story here. no thinking person takes her seriusly, and her minions have no sense of irony.

    however, the abrams question is relevant and timely. he is correct in saying that the media have essentially given obama a free pass while poring over and dissecting every foible and misstep (real or imagined)in hillary's campaign. high-flown rhetoric and, (at times, specious) speechifying is fine, but absent substance, it can only get you so far.

    the pundits' lazy and facile coverage of the democratic campaign has amounted to little more than the breathless fawning of pubescent tweens: ooh, he's handsome and smart. ooh, he talks pretty. look at the ginormous crowds; he's a rock star.

    give me a fucking break. *with a wink to bill*

    Posted by: nic | Feb 1, 2008 1:48:05 PM

  21. Obama ranked most liberal senator 2007

    Hillary 16th

    She is conservative. More conservative than Obama.

    VS Mccain

    She is more liberal but not by much. He spoke out against the US torturing people and renigging on the Geneva Covention where as Hillary was silent

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Feb 1, 2008 1:54:46 PM


    you said "renigging" instead of "reneging."

    is that a conscious slap at, or a freudian slip about, your candidate?

    Posted by: nic | Feb 1, 2008 2:26:15 PM

  23. Ultra right-wing media is trying to help Obama win so that he gets crushed by McCain. Hillary, on the other hand, would give it as good as it takes and would be tougher for others to take down.

    It's all about reverse psychology.

    Posted by: Landis | Feb 1, 2008 2:26:42 PM

  24. NIC:

    Jimmy has the credentials to do some "reniggering" anytime he wants to. He's faught some racist bitches on this blog with more ferocity than I have. Of course, he's more butch than me, so why not?

    No, Abraham Lincoln (with his inexperience in executive office) didn't face those modern problems you mention, he just faced the tearing apart of the Republic, and leading the country through the bloodiest war the United States ever experienced.

    Daniel, I'm just saying that the argument that Barack doesn't have experience enough to run the country doesn't carry much weight with a lot of folks. Ronald Reagan didn't really run the country did he? He was a delegator, but he used the "bully pulpit" to lead the country (the conservative way) . Well, maybe Barack will be the same kind of president, a leader with a direction, but with an administration that sees to the actual plans/ strategies/details.

    Hey, what kind experience did Big Cigar Daddy Clinton have in foreien affairs?... but we elected him...same for Baby Bush.

    I wish this thing was over by next Wednesday. Barack or Hillary--I don't give a fuck. Well, I mean, I do care, but as long as it's a Democrat--I don't care.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Feb 1, 2008 2:42:46 PM

  25. Nic, I certainly agree with you that the MSM have been caught up in the Obama as Elvis madness, but the gay press, with a specific and by-definiton narrow focus of issues has been worse, with rare exception. All they really do, totally unexamined, is repeat Obama campaign propaganda such as the nonsense about Section 2 of DOMA and "hearing" "gay civil rights" and "end homophobia" in his speeches [versus debate/interview answers] instead of what he's literally—and very carefully and intentionally—saying/not saying.

    HOWEVER, repeat HOWEVER, your question to Jimmy regarding a "Freudian slip" is inexcusably racist.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 1, 2008 2:46:32 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment


« «L.A. Weekly on Obama's Gay Fundraisers« «